Charleston Voice

An ethical person - like a politician, banker or lawyer - may know right from wrong, but unlike many of them, a moral person lives it. An Americanist first already knows that.
Bankers and their government agents will always act in their own best interests. Any residual benefit flowing down to the citizens by happenstance will just be litter.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Not a US citizen? No problem, it doesn't matter anymore! ¿No un ciudadano estadounidense? ¡No hay problema, no importa más!

If
you consider yourself a Cruzer supporter watch where you step. If you
think the "tea party" is your safe haven, you'll be disappointed when
you find out it's just another appendage for GOP neocon leadership propaganda.

The
mouse trap is baited, don't lunge for the cheese. Promise us all you'll
jump off a bridge after you support whom you thought was the 'lesser of
two evils', when in fact there is no lesser! The Cruzer and an opponent
worship at other alters than you or me.

During his CPAC speech this weekend,
Senator Ted Cruz took shots at previous Republican presidential candidates
Dole, McCain, and Romney, for lacking a “clear distinction” from big-government
democrats. Well, I think Mr. Cruz has got some ‘splaining to do. It seems he’s
just as married—literally—to the establishment as any of them.

A report from the ever-busy infowars.com reveals that Cruz’s
wife, Heidi, has some rather behemoth credentials:

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Not a US citizen? No problem, it doesn't matter anymore! ¿No un ciudadano estadounidense? ¡No hay problema, no importa más!

If you consider yourself a Cruzer supporter watch where you step. If you think the "tea party" is your safe haven, you'll be disappointed when you find out it's just another appendage for GOP neocon leadership propaganda.

The mouse trap is baited, don't lunge for the cheese. Promise us all you'll jump off a bridge after you support whom you thought was the 'lesser of two evils', when in fact there is no lesser! The Cruzer and an opponent worship at other alters than you or me.

During his CPAC speech this weekend,
Senator Ted Cruz took shots at previous Republican presidential candidates
Dole, McCain, and Romney, for lacking a “clear distinction” from big-government
democrats. Well, I think Mr. Cruz has got some ‘splaining to do. It seems he’s
just as married—literally—to the establishment as any of them.

A report from the ever-busy infowars.com reveals that Cruz’s
wife, Heidi, has some rather behemoth credentials:

Cruz’s insider connection is a
family affair. His wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs vice president in Houston,
Texas, according to her LinkedIn profile. She also served as an economic
advisor for the Bush administration. In 2011, a Cruz campaign spokesman
portrayed Heidi as “an expert on North American trade,” in other words she is
savvy when it comes to globalist transnational trade deals like NAFTA, the single most destructive government move against
the American worker in history.

She was also a term member of the
Council on Foreign Relations (see her bio at
Claremont McKenna College), a position that expired prior to her husband’s
attack on the globalist organization.

The details come from a page
listing Clermont-McKenna College’s Board of Advisors, on which Mrs. Cruz
apparently served. In addition to being one of only three of W’s economic
advisors,

She also served in the
Administration as the economic director for the Western Hemisphere at the
National Security Council at the White House, advising the President and
then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. She also is a former director
at the U.S. Treasury Department and was special policy assistant to Ambassador
Robert B. Zoellick, then Chief U.S. international trade negotiator.

It also reveals that before Goldman
Sachs, she worked for another tentacle of the vampire squid, JPMorgan,
“focusing on international structured finance.”

None of this says “Tea Party,”
“small government,” “sound money,” and contrary to Cruz’s latest pitch, it also
does not much support “standing on principle”—unless that “principle” is fiat
money, TARP bailouts, financing wars, revolving doors, etc.

Now perhaps Mrs. Cruz’s career is
not representative of the Senator’s views. Or, if it is, perhaps the Senator
has changed views in recent years. He did later blast the CFR, but that seems
to have come only after his wife’s Term ended, and only when trying to present
himself as a Tea Party candidate.

But Cruz has wasted no time showing
us to his views. Only a day after falling a distant second behind Ran Paul
(Paul 31%, Cruz only 11%) in the CPAC straw poll, Cruz took a swipe, albeit a
weak one, at Paul. Breitbart.com reports that despite being a “big fan” of Rand Paul, Cruz
stated, “I don’t agree with him on foreign policy.”

There’s no doubt Paul is not an
imperialist or a warmonger, but he has certainly deviated from his father’s
uncompromising non-interventionism. When Fox News Sunday asked about his
foreign policy, Paul answered,

I see my foreign policy in the same
line as what came out of, probably, the first George Bush. Henry Kissinger
wrote something in the Washington Post two days ago [here] which I agree with. I see it coming out of the
mainstream of the Republican position.

I opposed with real fervor the
involvement of us in Syria, and that became the dominant position in the
country—both Republican and Democrat. There’s not one Republican who’s saying
we should put military troops in Crimea, in the Ukraine. So I think I’m right
in the middle of that position.

And I think that those who would try
to argue that somehow I’m different than the mainstream Republican opinion are
people who want to take advantage for their own personal political gain. I’m a
great believer in Ronald Reagan. I’m a great believer in a strong national
defense. . . .

It’s perhaps not surprising then
that in his sideswipe at Paul, Cruz didn’t really give any real specifics, just
vague sentimental references:

U.S. leadership is critical in the
world. I agree we should be reluctant to deploy military force aboard, but
there’s a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did. When Ronald Reagan called the
Soviet Union an Evil Empire, when he stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and
said ‘Tear down this wall.’ Those words changed the course of history. The
United States has a responsibility to defend our values.

Of course, Paul seems to share all
of these platitudes: who doesn’t believe in “defending our values”? Who doesn’t
believe in “U.S. leadership”? So as criticisms these fall flat.

The real questions are things like,
“Do we need 800 international military bases to accomplish this?” “Do we need
to maintain military bases in 63 countries?” “Do we need standing armies of
255,000 soldiers in foreign countries?” “Can anyone who believes in fiscal
responsibility and small government seriously maintain $680+ billions each year
in ‘defense’ spending?” And this is all not even considering the biblical
doctrines regard the military and war (Paul has hinted at some. Cruz has not, as far as I know).

Since Paul shares the views Cruz
mentioned, it seems that Cruz is either uniformed (unlikely), dishonest
(harsh), or is engaging in careless political volleys.

Consider the results of CPAC, the
latter seems most likely.

In fairness, Cruz was asked about
Paul by an interviewer, so he had no choice but answer. But his answer is vague
grandstanding on things Paul agrees with.

So, if we are to believe that Cruz’s
answer distinguishes him from Paul somehow, then he must have very different
definitions of “U.S. leadership” and “defending our values” than those
articulated by Paul. For Cruz, these must be euphemisms for “imperialism” and
“interventionism.”

If Cruz’s familial
associations—Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, W, CFR— are any indication, then I think
we know the answer. I suspect there is, therefore, some truth in Infowar.com’s
conclusion:

Like the domestication of the Tea
Party and the expulsion of its more purist liberty-minded activists, the Cruz
the warrior pitted against the establishment motif is another slick subversion
directed at the political elite’s most puissant opposition – the real Tea Party
and a threatening number of patriot activists gnawing at the edges of the
political establishment.

If Cruz gets more prominent for the
2016 primary, I suspect there will be an attempt to scrub these associations.

Many forget today that Reagan’s
decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time, some of whom would even call
Reagan an appeaser. In the Middle East, Reagan strategically pulled
back our forces after the tragedy in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 Marines,
realizing the cost of American lives was too great for the mission.

Without a clearly defined mission,
exit strategy or acceptable rationale for risking soldiers lives, Reagan
possessed the leadership to reassess and readjust.

Today, we forget that some of the
Republican hawks of his time criticized Reagan harshly for this too,
again, calling him an appeaser. . . .

How many leaders were as great as
Reagan, willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them and put their country
before their own reputation and legacy?

Today’s Republicans should
concentrate on establishing their own identities and agendas, as opposed to
simply latching onto Ronald Reagan’s legacy—or worse, misrepresenting it.

For more on how these tax-exempt foundations have corrupted our country with money gifted from us go here.For another youtube expose of the FDA, go here For the extensive video gallery of the Rockefellers and their co-conspirators go to bottom of this post.

Published on Mar 12, 2014

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: As Americans fret about the Obamacare website and wonder how the country became enslaved to the high.

The
modern day mainstream medical industry has a dubious history, deeply
rooted by a drive for profit through the subversion and suppression of
non-profitabl.

Alex Jones Radio show 5th of January 2009
broadcast. Dr. Russell Blaylock talks to Alex about the Rockefellers and
their eugenics programs and how it all cam.

Part of a Eustace Mullins interview by wa5dxp, May 22, 2005.

Global Sciences Congress, December 1, 1990, Tampa, Florida.

An
exploration of the mission and history and an overview of some current
research underway at The Rockefeller University Hospital. The Hospital,
which is ce.

How ROCKEFELLER ruined our Medical industry, hiding a
simple cure for ALL diseases, even terminal cancer, for nearly free and
no danger -- contrary to Corbot.

J'ai créé cette vidéo à l'aide de l'application de montage de vidéos YouTube ( A senior UN counter-terrorism official is to as.

The
good folks at Natural News put together this short - but extremely
revealing - video about the origins of both the American Medical
Association and the n.

The Rockefeller Foundation was first set
up in 1904 and called the General Education Fund. An organization called
the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to s.

J'ai créé cette vidéo à l'aide de l'application de montage de vidéos YouTube ( A senior UN counter-terrorism official is to as.

This
is a video of the Rockefeller Estate. It is the home that John D.
Rockefeller, the nations first billionaire, called Kykuit - dutch for
lookout, because.

Rockefeller was used to tough situations from a
young age. Watch his story in The Men Who Built America exclusively on
HISTORY (Sky 529, Virgin Media 234, BT.

Even as millions and millions of Americans—represented by thousands of labor, environmental, family farm, consumer, faith, Internet freedom and other advocacy organizations—continue
to stand firmly in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, those
backing the TPP, including President Obama and a large majority of the
Republican caucus, still have two dedicated demographic groups pledging
their allegiance to the cause and arguing the so-called "free trade
agreement (FTA)" would be good for average workers and the economy
overall: billionaires and Wall Street titans.As Zach Carter of the Huffington Postreports:

Last week, dozens of New York City's power elite signed a letter
to the state's congressional delegation, urging lawmakers to support
the Trans-Pacific Partnership now in negotiations. Democrats in Congress
largely oppose the TPP, and Republican leaders have said they don'thave the votes needed to pass it without Democratic support.But while Obama has struggled to win over members of his own party -- he has been publicly feuding with Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.) -- wealthy CEOs probably aren't the ideal pitchmen to
skeptical Democrats. Even if their letter hails the TPP as "a catalyst
for creating new jobs in the United States" that will benefit "American
workers in a broad range of industries."

Fox News mogul Rupert
Murdoch signed the letter. So did Steven Schwarzman, who once compared
the prospect of raising taxes on private equity magnates like himself to
Hitler's invasion of Poland. John Paulson, the Republican mega-donor who made a fortune betting against the housing market with Goldman Sachs, is also a signee. So is vulture investor Wilbur Ross, who spent six figures
to support GOP nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 and has backed such
conservative hardliners as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and former Rep.
Allen West (R-Fla.).

Other signatories include real estate billionaire Jerry Speyer, who recently attended a $100,000-per-person
fundraiser to bolster former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's White House hopes.
The host of that event, private equity kingpin Henry Kravis, also
signed.

News of the letter, which can be read in full here, came on the same day as new trade data
released by the U.S. Census Bureau, covering the full first three years
of the bilateral trade deal between the U.S. and South Korea, revealed
that the U.S. goods trade deficit with that country has more than
doubled since the agreement, first signed in 2007 and amended in 2010,
was implemented.

What the new data shows, according to the advocacy group Public
Citizen, is economic outcomes that are the opposite of the Obama
administration’s "more exports, more jobs"
promise used to push through that deal, which are the same promises the
administration and those supporting TPP are now using as they attempt
to persuade Congress to approve Fast Track authority and ram it through
Congress without debate or amendment.

The new economic statistics, explains Public Citizen, offer a damning indictment of the promises on which such deals are sold:

U.S. goods exports to Korea have dropped 6 percent, or
$2.7 billion, under the Korea FTA’s first three years, while goods
imports from Korea have surged 19 percent, or $11.3 billion (comparing
the deal’s third year to the year before implementation). As a result,
the U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea has swelled 104 percent, or more
than $14 billion. The trade deficit increase equates to the loss of
more than 93,000 American jobs in the first three years of the Korea
FTA, counting both exports and imports, according to the trade-jobs ratio that the Obama administration used to project gains from the deal." [...]Record-breaking
U.S. trade deficits with Korea have become the new normal under the FTA
– in 35 of the 36 months since the Korea FTA took effect, the U.S.
goods trade deficit with Korea has exceeded the average monthly trade
deficit seen in the three years before the deal. In January 2015, the
monthly U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea topped $3 billion – the
highest level on record.

The administration has tried to deflect
attention from the failure of its Korea FTA by claiming that its poor
performance has been caused by economic stagnation in Korea. However,
Korea’s economy has grown during each year of the Korea FTA, while U.S. exports to Korea have not.

Despite those figures and the collapse of the U.S. manufacturing
sector in the age of neoliberal globalization, the repeated line from
TPP supporters is that these deals are 'job creators.' As the letter
from the billionaire elites to the New York Congressional Delegation
stated, "TPP would be a catalyst for creating new jobs in the United
States, attracting more foreign investment to this country, and
benefitting American workers in a broad range of industries."

But that's simply not what the evidence from past FTAs shows, said
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, in a
statement on Tuesday.

"Who’s going to buy the argument about Fast Track and the TPP
creating 'more exports, more jobs' when Obama’s only major trade deal,
used as the TPP template, was sold under that very slogan and yet has
done the opposite?"

And Dave Johnson, from the Campaign for America's Future, explained
in a Tuesday post how none of this "just happened" by accident, but that
corporate-friendly trade policies have created these 'job-killing'
conditions:

Globalization is not some kind of inevitable natural
process of history that has caught up with us. This was and is the
result of intentional policy choices, designed to force
deindustrialization, break unions, drive down wages and benefits and
increase inequality as that pay differential is pocketed by a few. This
is the result of the “free market, free trade” ideology that rose up in
the late 70s. Free trade policy was and is designed to give a few
plutocrats and their giant corporations — “the 1 percent” — increased
power over governments.

Dean Baker, in “Globalization Was Policy, Not Something That Happened,”
explained, “… inequality, like the path of globalization, is not
something that happened. It was and is the result of conscious policy.
We won’t be able to deal with it effectively until we acknowledge this
simple fact.”

In his reporting for Huffington Post, Carter makes it clear
that it wasn't only billionaires who signed the letter urging for Fast
Track and TPP approval. Some, he told his readers, were "merely
millionaire CEOs" like Goldman Sach's Lloyd Blankfein, Kenneth Chenault
of American Express, and JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Despite Numbers, Experts Question Combat Effectiveness

(Photo: Larionov Vladimir Yefimovich, ITAR-TASS/Newscom)

WASHINGTON — The Russian Navy's submarine force is on a roll.Four
different kinds of submarines are under construction and more are
coming. The country expects to lay down five new nuclear submarines in
2015.

The Navy is accepting Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic
missile submarines, Yasen-class nuclear attack submarines, and Kilo- and
Lada-class diesel electric attack submarines. Six Kilos are being built
for Vietnam and more are offered for export.This rate of
construction is beginning to look more like Cold War days rather than
the lethargic shipbuilding rates prevalent since the 1990s.

By
comparison, the US only recently returned to building two nuclear attack
submarines per year, and industry is gearing up to begin construction
of a new class of ballistic submarines in 2021 — a three-subs-per-year
construction rate not seen since the Reagan era.

Combine the
revived Russian submarine construction rate with President Vladimir
Putin's aggressive stances of the past year, along with the steady
drumbeat of Chinese naval expansion, and the question might be asked —
is a submarine race going on?

"I know a lot of folks like the term
arms race, but I think it's more complicated than that," said Thomas
Mahnken, a former US defense official and now a professor at the Naval
War College. "There's definitely competition going on — with the US,
other NATO navies, China — but there's also modernization going on. An
increasing portion of what Russia is doing is replacing aging systems or
systems that already have been retired."

"I would be skeptical,"
cautioned Norman Friedman, a longtime naval analyst and author. "There's
a history in that country of laying down things that don't get finished
for a long time. No question they'll lay down the subs, but actually
building them after that is a more interesting question."

The
Russians frequently issue proclamations that they intend to increase
naval construction, including statements about building a fleet of
aircraft carriers. But ship construction remains modest, and the Navy
remains largely a collection of Cold War relics. Yet Russia has a long
tradition of building tough and innovative submarines.

"The
Russians have put their money where their mouth is with regard to
submarine construction and development," said Bryan Clark, a former US
Navy submariner and strategist, now an analyst with the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "They see that as a way to generate
an asymmetric advantage over US forces. If they can develop a really
high-end submarine force like they did in the Cold War, it would create a
problem for US naval planners and strategists thinking through how to
deal with a potential Russian threat — one that could emerge without a
lot of warning."

Construction Delays

The most lethal
new subs are those of the Yuri Dolgoruky class, also known as the
Project 955 Borey class. Construction of the Dolgoruky has been a
protracted affair — the ship was laid down at the Sevmash military
shipyard in Severodvinsk in 1996 but not launched until 2007. Sea trials
began in 2009, but development of the ship's primary weapon, the Bulava
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), itself has been fraught with
problems. It was only in 2014 that the submarine submerged with a full
load of 16 ICBMs, according to Russian media.

A second Borey, the
Alexander Nevsky, was laid down in March 2004 and began sea trials in
2011. Like the Dolgoruky, the ship and its missiles have experienced
numerous problems, and trials continued at least through 2013. Vladimir
Monomakh, the third Borey, was commissioned last December after eight
years of construction and trials.

Three more Boreys are under
construction, and Russian Navy chief Adm. Viktor Chirkov said in
December two more would be laid down in 2015, for a total of eight, all
expected to be in service by 2020.

The design of the Dolgorukys
uses many features of earlier submarines. In fact, the first units used
pieces and components built for earlier submarines that were either
scrapped or never finished. Russian media reports indicate the Vladimir
Monomakh used significant hull components of the decommissioned
Akula-class attack submarine Ak Bars.

"I get the feeling for all
the big talk from the Russians about building a new fleet, they're
probably having trouble getting stuff," Friedman said. "For the first
subs, they used pieces from earlier subs."

The Dolgoruky carried
out an operational test firing of a Bulava in October, the Itar-Tass
news agency reported — the third successful test launch since a
September 2013 failure — and two more will take place in 2015.

Meanwhile,
construction of Yasen-class Project 885M nuclear attack submarines is
picking up. The first unit, Severodvinsk, was commissioned at the end of
2013 after a 20-year construction period, during which the submarine
underwent significant re-design. A second unit, laid down in 2009 at
Sevmash, could be delivered this year.

Two more Yasens were laid
down in 2014. Itar-Tass reported on Dec. 26 that Mikhail Budnichenko,
head of Sevmash, said three Project 885 Yasen-class subs would be laid
down this year along with two Boreys.

Non-nuclear submarine
construction also continues. Along with several Kilo-class subs being
built for the Russian Navy and export, at least one more Lada-class
diesel-electric submarine is to begin construction this year.

Numbers vs. Effectiveness

But can Russia sustain this prodigious submarine construction effort?

"The
naval production we're likely to see this year is an artifact of
decisions made some time ago when oil prices were fairly high and before
a number of Western countries imposed sanctions on Russia," Mahnken
said. "Whatever the Russians do this year, I think it'll be very hard
for them to sustain naval production going forward."

Added Friedman: "Putin doesn't have that much money. And with the drop in oil prices, they have very bad problems."

With the post-1990 decline in shipbuilding, Friedman said, the shipyards have lost much of their submarine-building expertise."A
lot of people quit the yards" when construction all but ended, he said.
"If they lost a lot of their smarter people, there's a difficulty in
recreating what they had. Coming back 15 years later and trying to
recreate it is kind of dubious."

Clark agreed.

"Their
industrial base is weakened from two decades of not being used," he
said. "You've got a significant reduction in the number of skilled
engineers, the aging out of people who otherwise would be part of the
Russian design base.

"While Russian engineering and technology
development is top-notch, they don't necessarily have the people to be
able to do all the legwork necessary to take an idea into a reality.
That's why you see things like submarines taking 10 or more years to
construct, because they just don't have the design and construction base
to support high-rate production."

But are the new submarines cause for worry?

The
Yasen attack subs "are probably what you could get in 1989, plus
improved combat systems," Friedman said. "They got access to
microprocessors and things like that. But they're not going to the
insertion of new technology, because they're not that flexible. But I
would guess the combat systems have improved substantially."

Clark sees no cause for alarm in the pace of Russian submarine construction.

"They
don't have very many submarines today, and they certainly don't have
very many frontline submarines that would be anywhere close to US
submarines," he said. "The best submarines the Russians are producing
are perhaps equivalent to some of the older US submarines currently in
use. It would take a while for the Russians to build up enough of those
to where they create a potential problem for the US.

"The main
concern," Clark added, "is that even a small number of very good
submarines can be problematic from an intelligence-gathering and
surprise strike kind of perspective. But they're not able to cause a
debilitating effect to a fleet."E-mail ccavas@defensenews.com

This article originally appeared at Zero HedgeOn Friday we reported that
for the first time in history, Chinese and Russian navies will begin a
significant joint naval exercise in The Mediterranean Sea in mid-May.

Citied
by RT, Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng said that “The
aim is to deepen both countries’ friendly and practical cooperation, and
increase our navies’ ability to jointly deal with maritime security
threats,” but diplomatically added “these exercises are not aimed at any
third party and have nothing to do with the regional situation.”

Against
a background of this week’s “upgraded Japan-American military
relationship” following Abe’s visit to Obama, as one analyst notes, “the
geopolitical significance of its exercising alongside Russia will not
be lost on the U.S. and NATO.”

While it was unclear if directly related to the upcoming “historic” drill, the Bosphorus Navy Blog reports
that in what is a comparable “first” yesterday two warships from
Peoples Republic of China were seen passing through the Bosphorus, and
entering the Black Sea.

More:

Two Jiangkai
II (type 054A) class frigates 550 Weifang and 547 Linyi from PLAN North
Sea Fleet made a northbound passage through the Turkish Straits. The
destination of these Chinese ships were not disclosed.

The frigates shown below, as they were seen crossing the naval barrier between Europe and Asia:

NATO
promptly responded and hours ago AP reported that a top NATO commander
said the alliance will briefly move its allied joint force command from
Italy to Romania - which has a historic Black Sea port in the town of
Constanta - as NATO continues to react to Russia’s moves in Ukraine.

Admiral
Mark Ferguson, Commander of Allied Joint Force Command based in Naples,
Italy, said the command will be based in Cincu, central Romania, for 12
days in June, to support a NATO exercise involving 1,000 troops from 21
NATO states.

Cincu is Romania’s largest military shooting range, some 180 kilometers (112 miles) northwest of Bucharest.

“This deployment will be the first time a NATO Joint Force Command Headquarters has deployed to Romania,” Ferguson said Tuesday.

At the same time, NATO will conduct exercises in Poland, the Baltics and the Baltic Sea.

As
a reminder, in the summer of 2013 when the Syria war tensions saw a
build of US, Russian and even Chinese ships in the Mediterranean ahead
of what could be the first global Middle East war. The war was avoided
in the last minute. This time the naval build up is taking place even
closer to both Europe and Russia, and now even China is present.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

With the Rothschilds now with beacheads on every shore, there's nary a safe climate for individual liberty. Rothschild Link Source Library (multi-lingual)Wikipedia is consistently cleansed of Rothschild Zionist links to modern companies, people, events and concepts. NFU

Eric Zuesse

Wall Street’s Council on Foreign Relations has issued a major report, alleging that China must be defeated because it threatens to become a bigger power in the world than the U.S.

This report, which is titled “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is introduced by Richard Haass, the CFR’s President, who affirms the report’s view that, “no relationship will matter more when it comes to defining the twenty-first century than the one between the United States and China.” He says that the report he is publishing argues that “strategic rivalry is highly likely if not inevitable between the existing major power of the day and the principal rising power.” Haass says that the authors “also argue that China has not evolved into the ‘responsible stakeholder’ that many in the United States hoped it would.” In other words: “cooperation” with China will probably need to become replaced by, as the report’s authors put it, “intense U.S.-China strategic competition.”

Haass gives this report his personal imprimatur by saying that it “deserves to become an important part of the debate about U.S. foreign policy and the pivotal U.S.-China relationship.” He acknowledges that some people won’t agree with the views it expresses.

The report itself then opens by saying: “Since its founding, the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western hemisphere, and finally globally.” It praises “the American victory in the Cold War.” It then lavishes praise on America’s imperialistic dominance: “The Department of Defense during the George H.W. Bush administration presciently contended that its ‘strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor’—thereby consciously pursuing the strategy of primacy that the United States successfully employed to outlast the Soviet Union.”

The rest of the report is likewise concerned with the international dominance of America’s aristocracy or the people who control this country’s international corporations, rather than with the welfare of the public or as the U.S. Constitution described the objective of the American Government: “the general welfare.”

The Preamble, or sovereignty clause, in the Constitution, presented that goal in this broader context: “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

The Council on Foreign Relations, as a representative of Wall Street, is concerned only with the dominance of America’s aristocracy. Their new report, about “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is like a declaration of war by America’s aristocracy, against China’s aristocracy. This report has no relationship to the U.S. Constitution, though it advises that the U.S. Government pursue this “Grand Strategy Toward China” irrespective of whether doing that would even be consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble.

The report repeats in many different contexts the basic theme, that China threatens “hegemonic” dominance in Asia. For example:

“China’s sustained economic success over the past thirty-odd years has enabled it to aggregate formidable power, making it the nation most capable of dominating the Asian continent and thus undermining the traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.”

The report never allows the matter of America’s “hegemonic control” to be even raised. Thus, “hegemony” is presumed to be evil and to be something that the U.S. must block other nations from having, because there is a “traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.” In other words: the U.S. isn’t being “hegemonic” by defeating aspiring hegemons. The report offers no term to refer to “hegemony” that’s being practiced by the U.S.

The report presents China as being supremacist, such as what (to quote again from the report) “historian Wang Gungwu has described as a ‘principle of superiority’ underwriting Beijing’s ‘long-hallowed tradition of treating foreign countries as all alike but unequal and inferior to China.’ Consistent with this principle, Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” America’s own ‘Manifest Destiny’ or right to regional (if not global) supremacy is not discussed, because supremacism is attributed only to the aristocracies in other countries, not to the aristocracy in this country.

Rather than the “general welfare,” this document emphasizes “U.S. Vital National Interests,” which are the interests of America’s aristocrats, the owners of America’s large international corporations.

This report urges:

“The United States should invest in defense capabilities and capacity specifically to defeat China’s emerging anti-access capabilities and permit successful U.S. power projection even against concerted opposition from Beijing. … Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget.”

In other words: the Government should spiral upward the U.S. debt even more vertically (which is good for Wall Street), and, in order to enable the increased ‘defense’ expenditures, only ‘defense’ expenditures should be freed from spending-caps. Forget the public, serve the owners of ‘defense’ firms and of the large international corporations who rely on the U.S. military to protect their property abroad.

The report says that China would have no reason to object to such policies: “There is no reason why a China that did not seek to overturn the balance of power in Asia should object to the policy prescriptions contained in this report.” Only a “hegemonic” China (such as the report incessantly alleges to exist, while the U.S. itself is not ‘hegemonic’) would object; and, therefore, the U.S. should ignore China’s objections, because they would be, by definition ‘hegemonic.’ Or, in other words: God is on our side, not on theirs.

“Washington simply cannot have it both ways—to accommodate Chinese concerns regarding U.S. power projection into Asia through ‘strategic reassurance’ and at the same time to promote and defend U.S. vital national interests in this vast region.”

The authors make clear that U.S. President Obama is not sufficiently hostile toward China: “All signs suggest that President Obama and his senior colleagues have a profoundly different and much more benign diagnosis of China’s strategic objectives in Asia than do we.”

Furthermore, the report ends by portraying Obama as weak on the anti-China front: “Many of these omissions in U.S. policy would seem to stem from an administration worried that such actions would offend Beijing and therefore damage the possibility of enduring strategic cooperation between the two nations, thus the dominating emphasis on cooperation. That self-defeating preoccupation by the United States based on a long-term goal of U.S.-China strategic partnership that cannot be accomplished in the foreseeable future should end.”

The report’s “Recommendations for U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China” urges Congress to “Deliver on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, … as a geoeconomic answer to growing Chinese economic power and geopolitical coercion in Asia,” but it fails to mention that the Obama Administration has already embodied the authors’ viewpoint and objectives in the TPP, which Obama created, and which cuts China out; it could hardly be a better exemplar of their agenda. The authors, in fact, state the exact opposite: that Obama’s objective in his TPP has instead been merely “as a shot in the arm of a dying Doha Round at the World Trade Organization (WTO).” They even ignore that Obama had cut China out of his proposed TPP.

“Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.” He was saying that these future military leaders will be using guns and bombs to enforce America’s economic dominance. This is the same thing that the CFR report is saying.

His speech also asserted: “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. … The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.” (That even resembles: “Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” Obama is, in a sense, saying that America is the “sole sovereign government in the world.”)

He made clear that China is “dispensable,” and that the U.S. must stay on top.

The only difference from Romney on that is: Obama wasn’t so foolish as to acknowledge publicly a belief that he shared with Romney but already knew was an unpopular position to take in the general election.

Furthermore, whereas the CFR report ignores the public’s welfare, Obama does give lip-service to that as being a matter of concern (just as he gave lip-service to opposing Romney’s assertion that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe”). After all, he is a ‘Democrat,’ and the authors of the CFR report write instead as if they were presenting a Republican Party campaign document. No ‘Democrat’ can be far-enough to the political right to satisfy Republican operatives. The pretense that they care about the public is therefore far less, because the Republican Party is far more open about its support of, by, and for, the super-rich. Mitt Romney wasn’t the only Republican who had contempt for the lower 47%. But even he tried to deny that he had meant it. In that sense, the CFR’s report is a Republican document, one which, quite simply, doesn’t offer the public the lip-service that Obama does (and which he politically must, in order to retain support even within his own party).

Perhaps on account of the CFR report’s condemning Obama for not being sufficiently right-wing — even though he is actually a conservative Republican on all but social issues (where China policy isn’t particularly relevant) — the report has received no mention in the mainstream press, ever since it was originally issued, back in March of this year. For whatever reason, America’s ‘news’ media ignored the report, notwithstanding its importance as an expression of old-style imperialistic thinking that comes from what many consider to be the prime foreign-affairs mouthpiece of America’s aristocracy — the CFR. The report’s first coverage was on 2 May 2015 at the World Socialist Web Site, which briefly paraphrased it but didn’t even link to it. Then, Stephen Lendman wrote about the CFR report. He briefly paraphrased it and passionately condemned it. He did link to the report. But he didn’t note the WSWS article, which had first informed the public of the CFR report’s existence — an existence which, until the WSWS article, all of America’s ‘press’ had simply ignored.

The present article is the first one to quote the CFR report, instead of merely to paraphrase and attack it. The quotations that were selected are ones presenting the report’s main points, so that readers here can see these points stated as they were written, rather than merely as I have interpreted them. My interpretation is in addition to, rather than a substitute for, what the report itself says.

Originally based in Little Rock, Arkansas and known as the
William J. Clinton Foundation, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton
Foundation was established by former U.S. President Bill Clinton in 2001 “to alleviate poverty, improve global health, strengthen economies, and protect the environment.”

persuade
wealthy businesspeople to pledge money to Clinton Foundation programs.
Former World Wildlife Fund
president David Sandalow, who served as a senior environmental official
in the Clinton administration, chairs the CGI Working Group. Claiming to be politically nonpartisan, the Foundation administers several major programs, of which the best-known is the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).

The Clinton Global Initiative

Incorporated in 2005 as an independent nonprofit, CGI aims to

Protection Agency administrator Carl Browner; Pew Center on Global Climate Change president Eileen Claussen; Environmental Defense president Fred Krupp; and Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla, an ethanol advocate
who supported California’s failed Proposition 87, which would have
imposed new taxes on that state’s oil producers. Other key CGI working
groups are headed by senior fellows at the Center for American Progress
who previously worked for the Clinton administration: Clinton economic
advisor Gene Sperling chairs the CGI Education Working Group; Clinton
National Security Council staffer Gayle Smith chairs the CGI
Poverty-Alleviation Working Group; and Thomas Kalil, deputy director of
Clinton's National Economic Council, chairs the CGI Global Health
Working Group.

CGI hosts annual Clinton Global Summits where
affluent business moguls, who pay $15,000 apiece to attend, pledge money
to CGI programs. Among those who attended in 2007 were high-ranking officials of Wal-Mart, PepsiCo, Duke Energy, Starbucks, the Carnegie Corporation, and the NoVo Foundation. Also on hand were former Vice President Al Gore, The
Working Group’s advisory board is composed of such luminaries as Natural Resources Defense Council president Frances Beinecke; President Clinton's former Environmental

Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Evangelical Environmental Network president Jim Ball, actors Brad Pitt
and Angelina Jolie, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Afghan president
Hamid Karzai, and media giants Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner. At this 2007 Summit, Bill Clinton advocated a form of Cap-and-Trade
that would raise energy prices while purportedly reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions. Some CGI activities, such as this
greenhouse-gas initiative, are of a highly political nature.

Others,
however, are not politicized – particularly those that focus their
philanthropy on impoverished peoples in Africa.

Additional major initiatives of the Clinton Foundation include the following:

A) The Clinton Health Access Initiative
(CHAI): Established in 2002 as the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative, this
program is dedicated to “expanding access to care and treatment for
HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis ... in developing countries.” In its
earliest months, BHCCF brokered
price cuts by generic drug producers of AIDS drugs, organizing a
cooperative that enabled more than 70 poor nations to purchase those
medicines at discounted rates. The driving force
behind this initiative is Ira C. Magaziner, a longtime Bill Clinton
ally who engineered Hillary Clinton’s failed attempt at a healthcare
overhaul in the early 1990s.

B) Clinton Climate Initiative
(CCI): Created in 2006 “to create and advance solutions to the core
issues driving climate change,” CCI is founded on the premise that human
industrial activity, by emitting greenhouse gases (GHG), causes global
warming. To address this problem, CCI has created such projects as
energy retrofits for homes and businesses, low-GHG-emitting outdoor
lighting, and improved waste management for American cities. CCI also
promotes clean-energy alternatives to fossil fuels, which it says
“account for about 60 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally.” Moreover, CCI seeks to curtail “deforestation in tropical countries,”
which it calls “a major contributor to climate change.”

D) Clinton Economic Opportunity Initiative
(CEOI): This Initiative was established in 2002 “to reduce economic
inequity and accelerate economic progress in the United States by
helping individuals become more financially stable and businesses in
underserved communities to grow.” CEOI's Entrepreneurship Program
“promotes business-to-business public service, helping entrepreneurs
reach higher levels of success”; the Financial Mainstream Program “helps
people access lower-cost, safer financial services, and the support
they need to develop and sustain good financial habits.” E) Clinton Development Initiative
(CDI): At the inaugural meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in
2005, Scottish philanthropist Tom Hunter, the wealthiest man in
Scotland, committed “to invest $100 million over ten years to encourage
sustainable economic growth in the developing world” – principally
Africa. Today, CDI “works to increase farmers’ access to fertilizer,
seeds, irrigation, and other farming inputs, and to identify and develop
new markets for agricultural outputs.”

An Apparent Quid Pro Quo Donation to the Clinton Foundation

In 2004, New York developer Robert Congel donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Soon thereafter, Senator Hillary Clinton reportedly helped Congel access millions of dollars in federal assistance for his mall project.Collecting Donations to Fund the Clinton Presidential Library